Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator would yield for me to further make the point of the Senator from Virginia, the Senator knows my office is also calling the DOT to light a fire under them to get the information back so that the Senator from Michigan has all the information he wants in order to make an informed decision. He is absolutely right. I mean, he represents his State and wants to represent it to the fullest. And he believes, correctly, that he would like to have more information. And so we are doing our best to get the information for the Senator. Once he does have it, I am quite confident things will work out. But it is more important, first, to get that information.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I chime in with the remarks of the distinguished Senator, chairman of our committee, Senator Chafee, and encourage Senators who do have amendments on this underlying amendment to come on over. I am going to encourage the chairman to go to a final vote on this amendment in the next 25 minutes, by a quarter of 3. Senators have had more than ample notice all day long, certainly this afternoon, and having heard from the chairman and from myself, all the offices around, they have about 25 minutes to get here. That is more than fair. I think it is, frankly, in fairness to other Senators who want to get on with this bill, move on with it--it's in fairness to them that we vote by a quarter to 3 on this final amendment. Unless Senators come to the floor with their amendments where we can work out some kind of time agreement in some expeditious manner, I really strongly encourage the chairman to vote at quarter to 3 if there are no pending amendments.

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. BAUCUS. Maybe one solution here--there is no perfect solution. Maybe one solution might be to vote on this amendment, and Senators who have concerns about this amendment can state them, that is, they are voting for it kind of on reservation or something like that, pending information that they get, and reserve the opportunity to offer amendments at a later time. I say that because this amendment, I suspect, is going to pass. Therefore, that will have passed and we will be done with it. Then we can still address the concerns that the Senator from Florida may or may not have, and having passed this amendment doesn't put him in a disadvantageous position.

Mr. BAUCUS. A voice vote would be more helpful to the Senators who do not know.

Mr. BAUCUS. I would like to, if I could, quantify a little bit what a few moments means. Can the Senators tell us that a few moments means no more than 15 minutes?

Mr. BAUCUS. At least let us know in 15 minutes whether you can accept.

Mr. BAUCUS. We have used up about 10 minutes of it.

Mr. BAUCUS. OK; 25. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Senators on the floor who are concerned about protecting their rights, and I thank them for being so accommodating. We have worked out an arrangement where we can move forward with this bill and, yet, they can still protect their rights and offer amendments if they so choose. I thank them. It is my understanding, Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan would like to have a colloquy.

Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my friend, of the amounts apportioned to the States, the goal is to give States 91 percent of their percent share of contributions to the highway trust fund.

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct. However, let me make an important point. In the underlying bill, 10 percent of the money is used for things such as research, emergency relief for natural disasters and administrative costs. That 10 percent is not counted in the calculation of the State's share. But this is not a new concept. These are national programs. It is the approach that has been taken in the previous ISTEA program as well. It is not new. In the amendment, I say to the Senator, we have given Michigan actually a better deal. In this amendment, we calculate the dollars needed to give you a 91- percent share. This calculation, for the first time, includes other programs. Included in the calculation under the amendment are the additional amounts apportioned to the States, that is $18.9 billion, plus the $1.8 billion in the new density program and the $1.89 billion in the Appalachian highway program. The result is that 91 percent is now calculated on a larger universe of funds than in the underlying bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this is a happy day, because it was not too long ago here that, after the EPA announced new standards for ozone and small particulates, there was going to be a huge uproar in the Senate and there would be a big battle over whether or not the EPA should be allowed to go ahead with these new standards. Frankly, however, as Senators have looked at this issue--and I take my hat off to the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, who has come up with this amendment--the effect of this amendment is not to delay those standards and not to in any way impede those standards, but rather set up a procedure which helps, frankly, assure the process will continue on a fair basis; namely, that the monitoring costs--and they will be quite extensive; that is monitoring the air in various parts of the country, particularly nonattainment areas--will be paid for by the Environmental Protection Agency. That is not by States. The States will be fully reimbursed for their monitoring costs. So that helps establish a solid program because we know where the money is going to come from and it will be fully paid for. A second major change here, at least a clarification, is that States will not be faced with new nonattainment designations under the Clean Air Act for PM 2.5--that is the small particulates--without 3 years of monitoring data. That at least makes sense, that we have 3 years of monitoring data. In fact, the EPA-proposed standard was based on a 3- year average anyway. So as a practical matter, this is a measure which will help assure that the standards will be addressed fairly, comprehensively, and also in a timely manner. So this version of this amendment, unlike earlier versions that had been filed, does not delay implementation of the new air quality standards. This version also has no language in it which revokes the standards. There was some concern that these standards might be revoked. That is not in here. Also, there is no provision that proposes a moratorium on EPA. In short, the new standards will go forward as envisioned. I might say to Senators, this is a long, involved process. It could take 10, 12 years before some of these standards actually ever go into effect, if they ever do. If they do go into effect, they are at the behest of and designation of States. That is, States, under what is called State implementation plans, would designate what actions various entities, whether they are powerplants or automobiles or what not, would have to do in order to qualify. And that would take a long time. So I finish where I began. This is a happy day. This is a resolution. It is a compromise. And I think it is going to help people be more assured, on a more solid, fair basis, that our air will be cleaner in those parts of the country where it needs to be cleaned up. I think it is a good amendment, and I thank the Senator very much for his amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. If I might beg the indulgence of the chairman of the committee, I understand the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, might want to speak on this amendment. She is looking at it at the moment. I suggest if procedurally we can do that, we ask consent this be temporarily laid aside so Senator Reid can speak. He may have an amendment here, too. I do not expect a problem, but I, in good faith, must tell the Senator I am informed Senator Boxer would like to have the opportunity to perhaps speak on this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. That's probably a better alternative, that we keep talking on the amendment and Senator Reid can keep talking, too.

Mr. BAUCUS. I might suggest you speak on the bill and/or your amendment. Once this amendment is disposed of, then we can vote on your amendment. Either way.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask consent the Senator speak on his amendment. The Senator from Oklahoma--speak on your own amendment. We will dispose of the Inhofe amendment, and then----

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be added as a cosponsor to the Inhofe amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1691 To Amendment No. 1676 (Purpose: To include as a goal of the innovative bridge research and construction program the development of new nondestructive bridge evaluation technologies and techniques)

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1692 To Amendment No. 1676 (Purpose: To refine the criteria of selection for Federal assistance for Trade Corridor and Border Infrastructure, Safety, and Congestion Relief projects)

Mr. BAUCUS. This amendment, as I mentioned, I am offering on behalf of Senator Moynihan from New York. It clarifies that the Secretary shall consider the value of commodities traveling through a State in addition to the volume of the commodities when selecting proposals in the border infrastructure and trade corridor program. We have examined this amendment. I think it has also been cleared by the other side. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Moseley-Braun and Durbin, and ask for its immediate consideration.